Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site shark.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxi!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch From: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer] Message-ID: <1292@shark.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Mar-85 03:33:09 EST Article-I.D.: shark.1292 Posted: Thu Mar 21 03:33:09 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 23-Mar-85 01:31:14 EST References: <893@topaz.ARPA> <2635@mcnc.UUCP> <> <366@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <414@cybvax0.UUCP> Reply-To: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 128 Xref: watmath net.religion:6225 net.religion.christian:496 Summary: > are from <414@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) >> are from <366@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> scott@gargoyle.UUCP ( Deerwester) >> ... I've >> read a few dozen articles, the gist of which is, "what makes your >> experience any more valid that the experiences of {Rich Rosen, >> Buddhists, Ubizmologists, ...}?" The difference is that mine aren't >> made-up examples. > >There are two ways to look at this claim. If you are trying to convince >me that you are not making up examples, then how can I distinguish you >from a liar? You obviously cannot. How can you distinguish the stories you hear about your next door neighbor's vacation from the ravings of a lunatic? You cannot. How can you tell that the tale of a survivor of the death camps in Germany isn't a paranoid delusion? You cannot. How can you tell that your parents didn't really adopt you as an infant, or conversely that (if they told you that you are adopted) that you are really their own child? You can't. Well, actually you can. You look for other corroborative evidence. If you can't find evidence to confirm or deny, you have to resort to learning as much as you can about the person making the testimony. Then, you decide whether that person is sane, and whether they are prone to exaggeration or delusion. Then, if they aren't, you give limited credence to their testimony. That is, you accept that they did experience what they say they experienced, though you might not accept their explanation as the only explanation. >The other way is to consider how your own experience is convincing you. >Our memories of our experiences are quite volatile, inaccurate, and >subject to progressive modification. And our experiences include a fair >number of unreal delusions, dreams, misunderstandings, perceptual errors, >hallucinations, etc. So, while you may have experienced something, that >you didn't consciously make it up is not sufficient reason to assume it >to be valid. This is a very popular argument. It even has some basis in reality. However, it can become an excuse for ignoring evidence which doesn't fit within the framework we want our world to fit in. The truth is, many people do have very volatile memories, and others do not. Some subjective experiences can be laid to hallucination, or to perceptual error or illusion, or to dreams. Others should not. This screening method must be used with extreme caution. An irreproducible event may still have happened. >> All that you're doing is saying, "See, I can make up an example of a >> personal experience that clearly has no relationship to reality. >> Therefore no personal experiences, including yours, can be used as >> the basis for anything." Sorry, but I'm not convinced. > >You shouldn't be convinced by that argument. However, Rich isn't making >it. What Rich is pointing out is the uselessness of testimony as a >rational argument for convincing someone else of religious beliefs. >Other arguments are used for denying validity of personal experience. Watch out! You'll get Rich chewing on your leg for putting words in his mouth! Actually, whether it was his intent or not, the "dream story" Rich told, and his reply to the indignant followups, sure made it LOOK like he was saying that NO personal experience, especially that of a religious nature, can be used to draw ANY conclusions. And to a limited extent I agree with that; my proviso is that personal experience must be limited to a supportive role, unless it can be corroborated by physical evidence or repeated reliably. >> Another important point: the subjective basis complements the >> objective basis. There are a lot of reasons why I believe that Jesus >> Christ is really the Son of God, and that He really did die for my >> sins. Some are based on personal experience. A lot of others >> aren't. Some that aren't: >> >> - the resurrection (see "Who Moved The Stone?") >> - fulfilled prophesies in the life of Jesus >> - the testimony and lives of people who were with Him >> - His words and wisdom (C.S. Lewis' "Lord, lunatic or liar" argument) >> - the Earth (the creation implies creator argument) > >These are hardly "objective" reasons to believe in JC or God or whatever. >The first three depend on the unjustified assumption that the Bible is true. >The lunatic/liar argument is a false dilemma: the conclusion that the Bible >is the product of liars resolves the dilemma. As for the creation argument, >try it in net.origins and give us something to laugh at. I beg to disagree. The resurrection of Jesus is one of the best documented events in ancient history. Further, there is no need to assume that the whole Bible is true; the Gospels and the Acts are all that must be considered. When they are treated as historic documents, several things come clear: First. the Gospels are not mythologized. They are not written in the style in which myths were written. Second. They are not teaching fables. They aren't written in the language of teaching fables. We have examples of contemporary teaching fables to compare against, and they don't fit. Third. They clearly are written as histories. Therefore, we have to conclude that they are fabrications or tales written by liars, or are histories written by honest men who were mistaken or hallucinating, or by honest men telling the truth. If they are fabrications, then there would have been a large number of holes in the different accounts. There would be a considerable amount of physical evidence which could be used to discredit them. There would be witnesses and testimony. In fact, there was no such evidence produced by the people who were trying to discredit the Nazarene movement. Similarly, if the histories were mistaken, then there would be counter-evidence produced. This is in fact what happened with respect to the various Gnostic cults which spun off of the early Church, especially that one led by Simon Magus. There is only one option remaining. Unless you choose to discard the evidence because it doesn't fit your framework. >> When I add everything up, including my own experiences and a rational >> look at objective evidence, believing in God makes a lot more sense >> than anything else that I've heard. > >(Great restraint exercised here to refrain from the obvious ad-hominem >attack.) You remind me of a lawyer who can't understand why he loses his >cases when he is so convinced by his own arguments. You seem blind to >the fallacies of your arguments. Objective does not equal "anything >written in the Bible". Try again. Nor does objective mean "anything written in the Bible is trash". Try again yourself. Hutch